Have you been on a bike in the last 5 years that was made in the last 5 years? I am into sports bikes more than anything so when someone makes the claim you just did, it makes my ears hurt. Hell, I would put my last Yamaha 600 against most bikes made in 1995 as far as “dependability”. Then again, I am not an all too common (to the point of lacking originality) Harley fanatic who thinks nothing beats a Harley.[/quote]
Amen to that. (And I don’t understand the interest in cruisers, personally.)
And if it’s your first bike, please, please don’t buy a liter bike. A bike off the showroom floor today would have won WSB or MotoGP ten years ago – shoot, the tires on a road bike today are better than the tires on GP bikes from even six years ago. Don’t be tempted by an R1, Gixxer thou (or 750), or 1kRR until you know how to ride.
Go get lessons from a good school (I can recommend a few from experience – PM me), and ride with some cool-headed folks who know how to ride and not hot-dog. You’ll run out of talent long before the bike reaches performance limits, no matter what the size, brand, or type. Guarantee it.
Most of my friends who I race with won’t ride on the road anymore – too many soccer moms talking on the cell phone in SUVs with nine kids screaming in them, and too many squids on the road that want to race. If you want to go faster, take it to the track.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Unless it’s a Harley, a new bike will see a massive drop in value as soon as you pull away from the dealer.
Most people who actually plan on keeping their bike for a while will probably put a couple grand into it over time anyway. I would rather have a bike to keep that I KNOW has been treated right, instead of one I hoped had been treated right.
I’d go back to around 1995 when bikes started becoming super-reliable.
Have you been on a bike in the last 5 years that was made in the last 5 years? I am into sports bikes more than anything so when someone makes the claim you just did, it makes my ears hurt. Hell, I would put my last Yamaha 600 against most bikes made in 1995 as far as “dependability”. Then again, I am not an all too common (to the point of lacking originality) Harley fanatic who thinks nothing beats a Harley.[/quote]
Damn, Prof. Rest your sphincter. Are you a motorcycle expert now? I ride a 2003 Yamaha V-Star. Big deal. You don’t ALWAYS have to try to be the authority.
A guy who is buying his first bike is probably going to buy a bike that he will quickly outgrow (you don’t start out on a Hyabusa or a Harley Road King), so why buy new? Get a used bike built within the last 10 years and I guarantee he won’t know the difference.
You might also notice the OP said he was more interested in “hogs” than sport bikes. Cruiser reliability, except for the dreaded AMC years of Harley, has always been pretty good. REALLY good since the mid 90’s. Don’t know and don’t care about sport bikes.
[quote]sdspeedracer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Have you been on a bike in the last 5 years that was made in the last 5 years? I am into sports bikes more than anything so when someone makes the claim you just did, it makes my ears hurt. Hell, I would put my last Yamaha 600 against most bikes made in 1995 as far as “dependability”. Then again, I am not an all too common (to the point of lacking originality) Harley fanatic who thinks nothing beats a Harley.
Amen to that. (And I don’t understand the interest in cruisers, personally.)
And if it’s your first bike, please, please don’t buy a liter bike. A bike off the showroom floor today would have won WSB or MotoGP ten years ago – shoot, the tires on a road bike today are better than the tires on GP bikes from even six years ago. Don’t be tempted by an R1, Gixxer thou (or 750), or 1kRR until you know how to ride.
Go get lessons from a good school (I can recommend a few from experience – PM me), and ride with some cool-headed folks who know how to ride and not hot-dog. You’ll run out of talent long before the bike reaches performance limits, no matter what the size, brand, or type. Guarantee it.
Most of my friends who I race with won’t ride on the road anymore – too many soccer moms talking on the cell phone in SUVs with nine kids screaming in them, and too many squids on the road that want to race. If you want to go faster, take it to the track.
(/soap box)[/quote]
Here we go. Another cruiser vs. sport bike debate.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
A guy who is buying his first bike is probably going to buy a bike that he will quickly outgrow (you don’t start out on a Hyabusa or a Harley Road King), so why buy new? Get a used bike built within the last 10 years and I guarantee he won’t know the difference.
[/quote]
No one has written differently in this thread. In fact, SEVERAL PEOPLE wrote a long time ago that the first bike should be used. I was one of those people if you would read above. The qualification of “if you have been riding for a while” has been thrown in a little too often to miss it either. The only point I’m making is that there is a LARGE difference (at least as far as sport bikes) in the way a bike from 1997 handles and a bike from 2006. The way my bike turns alone is miles ahead of any bike made in the 90’s. If cruisers haven’t seen improvements in ten years, that isn’t really a compliment.
I am actually looking at used bikes right now and I had a question.
It sounds like all bikes in the 8-10 year range are pretty solid. I’m just wondering what recommendations you would all give on mileage? I’m not sure how much it effects bikes compared to cars ext. 4000-5000 mile range sound alright?
[quote]yanksta wrote:
I am actually looking at used bikes right now and I had a question.
It sounds like all bikes in the 8-10 year range are pretty solid. I’m just wondering what recommendations you would all give on mileage? I’m not sure how much it effects bikes compared to cars ext. 4000-5000 mile range sound alright?[/quote]
I have had mine since last summer and already have close to 5,000miles on it. While the mileage tells you a lot, it doesn’t necessarily give any indication to how the bike was cared for. My bike stays in a garage unless I’m on it.
That means no rain damage, no dust and no other elements that could aid in breaking down the paint or rusting any components. Your primary concern will probably be if the bike has been laid down before and was it in any type of serious accident or if it just accidentally fell over one day. There is a large difference.
I would say most people who ride their bikes regularly (daily) could easily put on 5,000 miles in a year. Then again, there is one guy that trains at my gym who has had his bike for three years and only has 4,000 miles on it.
[quote]yanksta wrote:
I am actually looking at used bikes right now and I had a question.
It sounds like all bikes in the 8-10 year range are pretty solid. I’m just wondering what recommendations you would all give on mileage? I’m not sure how much it effects bikes compared to cars ext. 4000-5000 mile range sound alright?[/quote]
No problem. They are just getting broken in at that mileage.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
sdspeedracer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Here we go. Another cruiser vs. sport bike debate.
[/quote]
Not at all – to each his own. I threw in one sentence to the effect that I’m not a cruiser guy. My comments about buying crotch-rockets were generic – I hope no one buys superbikes for a first ride.
As for the used/new debate, I know several guys who’ve ridden their RC51s very hard and yet have >20k miles on them and still dyno as if new. If the first owner took good care of them, changed the oil regularly, etc., they’ll last a whole lot of miles.
I’ve got 15k on one that I’ve used as a road and track bike and it’s perfectly tight. My race bikes are a different story. Understand that most recreational bikes are just getting enough heat cycles in them at 3000 miles to be done breaking in.
As ProfX said, you can tell if you know what to look for. Most dealers will do check-outs for a few bucks. Also, I’d be willing to bet that cruisers will have much less wear/tear on them and be well suited to buying used.
I’d look at the Suzukis as well. Find a used Boulevard. They are shaft drive instead of a chain, they look good and with a set of pipes they sound pretty good too.
I love the Yamaha V-max. Someone posted a link to them earlier. They are completely unchanged from 1985-2007. Still carberated. They arent a traditional “hog” or sport bike, but kind in the middle, I guess closer to a Monster. They have amazing low end power.
My currnet bike is a 2000 Triumph TT600. I love that bike and will probably keep it even when I step up to a bigger bike
While it’s true the V-Max is awesome and almost unchanged in over 20 years (quite astonishing when you think about it), I am in awe of how wicked the 2008 model is supposed to look. Here it is.
[quote]TheSofaKing wrote:
While it’s true the V-Max is awesome and almost unchanged in over 20 years (quite astonishing when you think about it), I am in awe of how wicked the 2008 model is supposed to look. Here it is.[/quote]
[quote]TheSofaKing wrote:
While it’s true the V-Max is awesome and almost unchanged in over 20 years (quite astonishing when you think about it), I am in awe of how wicked the 2008 model is supposed to look. Here it is.[/quote]
Reminds me of the Suzuki B-King or whatever they called it. The V-Max is an awesome motorcycle.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PGJ wrote:
A guy who is buying his first bike is probably going to buy a bike that he will quickly outgrow (you don’t start out on a Hyabusa or a Harley Road King), so why buy new? Get a used bike built within the last 10 years and I guarantee he won’t know the difference.
No one has written differently in this thread. In fact, SEVERAL PEOPLE wrote a long time ago that the first bike should be used. I was one of those people if you would read above. The qualification of “if you have been riding for a while” has been thrown in a little too often to miss it either. The only point I’m making is that there is a LARGE difference (at least as far as sport bikes) in the way a bike from 1997 handles and a bike from 2006. The way my bike turns alone is miles ahead of any bike made in the 90’s. If cruisers haven’t seen improvements in ten years, that isn’t really a compliment.[/quote]
I see your point, but my origing point was concerning reliability, not handling. Sport bikes are built for performance, so I’m sure they have improved over the years. Cruisers, on the other hand, are built for style. Not much has changed in a while. It is a compliment because it’s a testament to the cruiser’s timliness.
I guess you have to be a fan to understand. Guys with really old cruisers are revered in a way.
Guys who ride cruisers aren’t really concerned with turn radius, or acceleration, top speed or handling.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PGJ wrote:
A guy who is buying his first bike is probably going to buy a bike that he will quickly outgrow (you don’t start out on a Hyabusa or a Harley Road King), so why buy new? Get a used bike built within the last 10 years and I guarantee he won’t know the difference.
No one has written differently in this thread. In fact, SEVERAL PEOPLE wrote a long time ago that the first bike should be used. I was one of those people if you would read above. The qualification of “if you have been riding for a while” has been thrown in a little too often to miss it either. The only point I’m making is that there is a LARGE difference (at least as far as sport bikes) in the way a bike from 1997 handles and a bike from 2006. The way my bike turns alone is miles ahead of any bike made in the 90’s. If cruisers haven’t seen improvements in ten years, that isn’t really a compliment.
I see your point, but my origing point was concerning reliability, not handling. Sport bikes are built for performance, so I’m sure they have improved over the years. Cruisers, on the other hand, are built for style. Not much has changed in a while. It is a compliment because it’s a testament to the cruiser’s timliness.
I guess you have to be a fan to understand. Guys with really old cruisers are revered in a way.
Guys who ride cruisers aren’t really concerned with turn radius, or acceleration, top speed or handling.
[/quote]
I can say with cetainty on average sports bike are more reliable than cruisers.
2)Guys with really old cruisers are revered by other guys with really old cruisers. I find that most of the guys I run across on cruisers are stuck up.
I guess you can look at the fact that cruisers not changing in a while as a plus. On the other hand it reminds me of some of the people who ride them. Set in their ways and a refusal to adapt. Afterall, you are what you ride.
[quote]Mad Titan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PGJ wrote:
A guy who is buying his first bike is probably going to buy a bike that he will quickly outgrow (you don’t start out on a Hyabusa or a Harley Road King), so why buy new? Get a used bike built within the last 10 years and I guarantee he won’t know the difference.
No one has written differently in this thread. In fact, SEVERAL PEOPLE wrote a long time ago that the first bike should be used. I was one of those people if you would read above. The qualification of “if you have been riding for a while” has been thrown in a little too often to miss it either. The only point I’m making is that there is a LARGE difference (at least as far as sport bikes) in the way a bike from 1997 handles and a bike from 2006. The way my bike turns alone is miles ahead of any bike made in the 90’s. If cruisers haven’t seen improvements in ten years, that isn’t really a compliment.
I see your point, but my origing point was concerning reliability, not handling. Sport bikes are built for performance, so I’m sure they have improved over the years. Cruisers, on the other hand, are built for style. Not much has changed in a while. It is a compliment because it’s a testament to the cruiser’s timliness.
I guess you have to be a fan to understand. Guys with really old cruisers are revered in a way.
Guys who ride cruisers aren’t really concerned with turn radius, or acceleration, top speed or handling.
I can say with cetainty on average sports bike are more reliable than cruisers.
2)Guys with really old cruisers are revered by other guys with really old cruisers. I find that most of the guys I run across on cruisers are stuck up.
I guess you can look at the fact that cruisers not changing in a while as a plus. On the other hand it reminds me of some of the people who ride them. Set in their ways and a refusal to adapt. Afterall, you are what you ride.[/quote]
Come on. You put a nice, well maintained Indian out there and a new Hyabusa next to it and see which attracts the larger crowd.
Please don’t turn this into a cruiser vs. sport bike food fight.
The fact is, the two bikes are built for different reasons. The things that make a great cruiser would make a terrible sport bike and vice versa. And the things that make a great cruiser have almost NOTHING to do with advanced technology.
[quote]Mad Titan wrote:
3) I guess you can look at the fact that cruisers not changing in a while as a plus. On the other hand it reminds me of some of the people who ride them. Set in their ways and a refusal to adapt. Afterall, you are what you ride.[/quote]
Refusal to adapt to what? Cruisers do exactly what they are supposed to do. You don’t buy a 800lb Harley to race it or do wheelies or endos. New cruisers do the exact same thing old cruisers do. It’s like saying your 1975 Cadillac El Dorado convertible sucks because 2007 Corvettes are faster and handle better. Different missions.
